NAME OF STUDENT : SUSHREE TEJASWINI

ENROLMENT NO. : 05314903523

MAHARAJA SURAJMAL INSTITUTE

MOOT COURT, 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CIVIL COURT OF MUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA , THE STATE

OF INDIA

PETITION NO : ***/***

M/s BUILD WELL CONTRACTORS Pvt. Ltd. ............ APPELLANT

VS

Mst. ARIJIT SONAWALE ............ RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
SERIAL NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO
1. THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3
2. THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 4
3. THE STATEMENT OF FACTS 5-6
4. THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES 7
5. THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 8
6. THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 9-14
7. THE PRAYER 15

2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES :
1. LAW AND ORDER OF INDIA
2. THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872
3. THE INDIAN MAJORITY ACT,1875
CASES :
 MOHORI BIBEE V. DHARMODAS GHOSE
 SHEELA DEVI V. RAM LAL (1954)
 BAL GANGADHAR TILAK SMARAK TRUST V. M/s
S.L.KIRLOSKAR BROS LTD. (1978)
 KUNWARLAL DRYAVSINGH V. SURAJMAL MAKHANLAL AND
ORS
 SANTOSH KUMARI V. RAJENDRA PRASAD SAHU
 LAKHWINDER SINGH V. PARAMJIT KAUR
 KHAN GUL V. LAKHA SINGH
 LESLIE V. SHEILL
WEBSITES :
 www.indiankanoon.org
 www.legalserviceindia.com
 www.manupatrafast.com
BOOKS :
1. M.P. JAIN INDIAN CONSTITUITIONAL LAW
2. AVTAR SINGH LAW OF CONTRACT 1

3
 THE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel on behalf of the respondent, humbly submits a written statement

before the High court of Mumbai, Maharashtra , for the dismissal of the case under
Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
The counsel most humbly and respectfully submits that this hon’ble court has the
requisite subject matter jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate this matter .

4
 THE STATEMENT OF FACTS

1) Mst. Arijit Sonawale , a sixteen year prodigy, a resident of Mumbai,

Maharashtra was the recipient of the “Sensational Voice of the Nation” award.
He was an astounding singer, extremely talented not only in Rap, Rock, Hip-
Hop and Jazz but also in Classical and Folk 2 music. He wanted to develop his
musical career by releasing fusion albums combining different genres and by
engaging himself on world music tours.He wanted a multi-purpose,
ultramodern architectural marvel called “Sound Palace'' where he could have
his recording studio, theatre - for live musical performances and a roof-top pool
for hosting parties. He misrepresented himself as a major and put the task out
to tender.
2) M/s. Build Well Contractors Pvt. Ltd. was a leading building constructor and
infrastructure provider. They offered to do the entire work for Rs.10,00,000.
Both the parties knew that this was an unrealistically low-price contract. Arijit
accepted their offer and entered into a contract for construction of the Sound
Palace and for providing all amenities therein.
3) According to the contract, the ground floor was for parking, the first floor was
for the music theatre, the second floor was for the recording studio, and the
third floor for the rooftop pool.
4) M/s. Build Well Contractors Pvt. Ltd. completed the construction of the ground
floor and first floor and ran out of money (all of Rs. 10,00,000 was exhausted)
and materials for further construction. They informed Arijit that they could not
complete the construction unless further capital of Rs. 7,00,000 was made
available to them.
5) Arijit had arranged a poolside party at the Sound Palace to which he had
invited top music directors, producers and other renowned individuals in the
music industry whom he believed would fund for his dream music albums and
music tours. So, he was desperate to have the construction of the roof-top pool
completed as stipulated. He had requested the contractors for the continuance
of the construction work of the Sound Palace and further requested to spend the
remaining amount of Rs.7,00,000 on the work out of their own funds and
assured them that the money would be paid to them as soon as his album is
released.
6) The roof-top pool was completed and the party was a success. Arijit entered
into a contract with Veena Producers who agreed to fund for the fusion albums
and world tours. Arijit told Ms. Astha Irani, the Manager of M/s. Build Well
Contractors Pvt. Ltd., “Madam, you have saved my career. Don’t worry about
Rs.7,00,000.” Having this as a promise, M/s. Build Well Contractors Pvt. Ltd.

5
 started a new project. However, Arijit’s new fusion music album was a
disastrous flop. Social media enthusiasts and meme pages massively trolled
him for his raucous and bizarre fusion music. He then found himself unable to
pay the amount of Rs.7,00,000 to M/s. Build Well Contractors Pvt. Ltd.
7) Arijit then decided to dispose of the Sound Palace, without paying a single
dime to M/s. Build Well Contractors Pvt. Ltd. When all this foul play came to
their knowledge, they tried torestrain him by putting enormous pressure in
order to recover their money amounting to a total sum of Rs.7,00,000 which
they spent on the construction and amenities. Even after such a prolonged
period and altered mode of payment, M/s. Build Well Contractors Pvt. Ltd.
could not recover the debt from Arijit. As a last resort, they sent him a legal
notice, stating that the money should be repaid within 15 days. However, Arijit
did not send any correspondence or reply to the said notice.
8) In this context, M/s. Build Well Contractors Pvt. Ltd finally decided to seek
remedy from the Court of Law. The suit was filed by M/s. Build Well
Contractors Pvt. Ltd before the Civil Court of Mumbai on the ground that they
had constructed the building as per the terms of the contract and had taken all
the diligent steps to recover the loan made available to Mst. Arijit Sonawale for
Rs.7,00,000 but now he refused to pay the said amount and alleged fraud
against him. They also prayed for an injunction restraining Mst. Arijit
Sonawale from selling the property, Sound Palace until the suit was disposed
of.
9) The Civil Court of Mumbai heard the matter and held that a minor’s contract is
void ab initio and thus, set Mst. Arijit Sonawale free from all his liabilities
towards M/s. Build Well Contractors Pvt. Ltd. by upholding the judgment
passed in MohoriBibee v. Dharmodas Ghose. The plea of restitution raised by
the Plaintiff was rejected and injunction was not granted.
10) M/s. Build Well Contractors Pvt. Ltd preferred an appeal before the High Court
of Bombay. The High Court granted injunction and decided to hear the case on
merits.

6
 THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES

i. i. Is it true that Mst. Arijit Sonawale defrauded M/s. Build Well Contractors
Pvt. Ltd.?
ii. Does the ruling in MohoriBibee v. Dharmodas Ghose require
reexamination?
iii. Was it right for the Mumbai Civil Court to turn down the restitution plea?

7
 THE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
i. Whether Mr. Arijit Sonawale is guilty of committing fraud upon M/s. Build
well construction Pvt. Ltd ?

It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that Mst. Arijit Sonawale is
not guilty of committing any financial fraud upon the appellant i.e M/s
Build Well contructionPvt. Ltd. The counsel will like to highlight the fact
that the respondent can not commit any fraud against the appellant as the
contract between the two parties was void-ab-initio
 As both the parties were aware that the contract made was with a
minor.
 As we are aware of the fact that any contract with a minor or an
infant is neither valid nor voidable but is void-ab-initio (invalid
from beginning)

 The Indian Contract Act, 1872's Section 64 only applies where the parties to a
contract are competent to do so; it is not relevant in situations where no contract is
created at all.

ii. Whether the judgement passed in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose needs
reconsideration ?

It is humbly and respectfully submitted before the hon’ble Court that the judgment passed
by the Privy Council which stated that agreement made with minor is void-ab-initio. Does
not need to be reconsidered as minor of anytime should be considered as a minor and shall
be given the full right to be protected by the laws , and as per the provisions of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872 any contract with a minor or an infant is null and void-ab-initio.

 The MohoriBibee v. Dharmodas Ghose lawsuit concerns a number of issues,

including the nature of contracts made by minors, the validity of establishing
estoppel, whether or not it is enforced, and sections 64 and 65 of the Contract Act.
iii. Was it right for the Mumbai civil court to turn down the restitution plea?

The decision made by the hon’ble civil court of Mumbai in which the hon’ble court
rejected the plea of restitution was very right.As appellant’s pray for injunction is not
applicable and no rights of appellant has been violated as the contract was void-ab-initio.

8
 THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1) WHETHER MST. ARIJIT SONAWALE IS GUILTY OF COMMITTING

FRUAD UPON M/s. BUILD WELL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. ?

The counsel on behalf of the respondent most humbly and respectfully submits before this
honourable court that Mst. Arijit Sonawala has not committed any fraud as he is not
ccompetent to contract as per the provisions laid down in the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

For agreement to be a contract, provisions of section 10, Indian Contract Act,1872, must
be fulfilled and they are as follows:-

a) the parties' voluntary assent;

b) the parties' competence to enter into one;

c) a lawful consideration;

d) a legitimate object; and

e) it cannot be expressly declared void.

The respondent's counsel respectfully contends before this honorable court that as Mr.
Arijit Sonawala is a minor, his consent cannot be regarded as free and valid, and as such,
the contract is invalid.

Because Arijit is younger than eighteen, he is considered a minor and cannot enter into
contracts under the Indian Contract Act of 1872.

Determining majority
Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 states that a person's age of majority
will be ascertained in accordance with the laws that apply to them. Consequently,
in the event that the terms of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 and the individual's
personal law differ, the latter will take precedence over the former.

CASE LAW

9
 In the case of KunwarlalDaryavsingh v. SurajmalMakhanlal and Ors1. , the
hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that the “his capacity to contract shall
be regulated by Indian Contract Act, 1872 being the law of her domicile and him
being a minor was not liable under the contract. Further minor’s contract for
necessities like

rent for residing and studying could be considered valid.” This clarifies that the
principle of the minor’s protection is not absolute and exceptions exist for essential
needs.

However it is important to note that Arijit’s contract for building a sound palace
wouldn’t necessarily fall under the category of “necessity”.

Indian Majority Act, 1875

A person who has not attained the age of majority is a minor. Section 3 of the
Indian majority Act, 1875 provides that a person is deemed to have attained the age
of majority when he completes the age of 18 years. Thus, the counsel on behalf of
the defendant most humbly and respectfully presents before this hon’ble court
thatMst. Arijit Sonawala is is below 18 years, he is a minor and thus incompetent
to contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Minor’s Competence to Contract

The counsel on behalf of the defendant most humbly and respectfully submits
before this hon’ble court that a minor is incompetent to enter into a contact and any
contact entered by him is void-ab-initio.

CASE LAWS

In the case of Santosh Kumari v. Rajendra Prasad Sahu2, involved a minor

entering into a partnership agreement. The Delhi High Court upheld the minor's
protection and declared the agreement void. It highlights the consistent application
of the "void ab initio" principle for general contracts involving minors.

In the case of Lakhwinder Singh V. Paramjit Kaur,3 plaintiff-respondent, a

daughter of one Avtar Singh, now deceased, inherited a part of his property
constituting land. While minor, she executed general power of attorney in favour
of her mother Smt. Rattan Kaur, who executed a sale deed of land belonging to her
daughter in favour of defendant-appellant. Finding that the plaintiff respondent was
a minor at the time of execution of power of attorney nor her mother obtained

1
AIR 1963 MP58
2
1995 SCC (1) 269 , JT 1994 (7) 756
3
AIR 2004 P&H6

10
 specific permission from the district court, sale of land share by the mother was
held void.

2) Whether the judgement passed in MohoriBibee v. Dharmodas

Ghose4needs reconsideration ?
The respondent's lawyer respectfully submits before this honorable court that, in
accordance with the terms of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the ruling rendered in
MohoriBibee v. Dharmodas Ghose does not require review. Any agreement made
with a child or minor is null and void ab initio.
In one instance, a minor had mortgaged his home to obtain a loan from a
moneylender.When the minor failed to make payments, the moneylender tried to
seize control of his home. However, the moneylender was unable to enforce this
contract since the court ruled that any agreement with a juvenile is null and
void.This ruling has been frequently invoked by Indian courts to release minors
from contractual obligations. Hence, unless certain legal rules permit it, minors
cannot join into agreements.A minor, for instance, cannot transfer

RULES RELATING TO AGREEMENT WITH MINORS

Although agreements made by minors are usually null and void, it's crucial to keep in
mind the following rules as well:

A contract made by a minor is void, so the minor can never be held accountable for
anything that comes from it.

The minor party cannot ratify the agreement when they become majority unless the law
specifically allows it.

3) A contract made with a minor is void, and no judge has the authority to require its
precise performance.

4) The evidentiary law notion of estoppel does not apply to minors who are contractually
bound. In other words, a child who signs a contract attesting to his majority age cannot be
held legally responsible.

5) Parents or guardians may enter minors into contracts only if doing so will benefit them.

 A minor is one who has not attained the age of 18, and for every contract, the majority
is a condition precedent. By looking at the Indian law, minor’s agreement is void ,
meaning thereby that it has no value in the eyes of the law. It is null and void as it
cannot be enforced by either party to the contract, even after he attains majority, the
same agreement could not be ratified by him.

4
ILR (1993) 30 Cal 539(PC)

11
 CASE LAWS
 In the case of Sheela Devi v. Lal Chand5, reiterated the principle from MohoriBibee,
emphasizing that even a minor's promissory estoppel cannot enforce a void contract.
Arijit's promise to pay after his album's success, even if made in good faith, cannot
resurrect the void contract.
 In the case of Bal Gangadhar Tilak Smarak Trust v. M/s. S.L. Kirloskar Bros. Ltd6.,
clarified that the protection of minors applies even if they misrepresented their age or
acted fraudulently. While Arijit's misrepresentation might raise ethical concerns, it
doesn't negate his legal protection as a minor.

NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST MINOR

The question that arises in a situation where a minor falsely claims to have
reached the age of majority at the time of contracting is whether the law of
estoppel applies to him and keeps him from claiming he was still a minor
at the time of the contract? "Where one person has by his declaration, act
or omission intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a
thing to be true, and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his
representatives shall be allowed in any suit or proceeding between himself
and such person or his representative to deny the truth of that thing," reads
Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act.

CASE LAW

The Lahore High Court further ruled in Khan Gul v. Lakha Singh that a minor is
exempt from the use of the estoppel statute. That being said, Sir Shad Lal, C.J. has a
different explanation. In his view, the Indian Contract Act's special law—which
declares a minor's agreement void—must be taken into consideration when
interpreting the general law of estoppel, which is a rule of proof.

SECTION 64 OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872

The appellant can not ask for refund , under Sections 64 and 65, Indian Contract Act.
Section 64 of the Indian Contract Act reads as under:
"When a person at whose option a contract is voidable rescinds it the other party
thereto need not perform any promise therein contained of which he is a promisor. The
party rescinding a voidable contract shall, if he has received any benefit thereunder
from another party to such contract, restore such benefit, so far as may be, to the
person from whom it was received."
5
(2006) 142 PLR 379
6
(1998) LPC

12
 Section 64 is applicable in the case of voidable contract. Minor’s contract being void
section 64 is not applied to this case and therefore the minor could not be asked to pay
the amount under this section.

SECTION 65 OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872

Application of section 65 can also not be considered. Section 65 is as follows :
"When an agreement is discovered to be void or when a contract becomes void, any
person who has received any advantage under such agreement or contract is bound to
restore it, or to make compensation for it, to the person from whom he received it."
As regards the application of this Section to the present case, it can be observed that
this Section, like Section 64, is applicable to an agreement or contract between
competent parties, and has no application to a case in which there never was, and never
could have been, any contract. The minor, therefore, could not be asked to repay the
amount even under Section 65.

 The verdict in the case of MohoriBibee vs Dharmodas Ghose was :

The court dismissed the appeal. The principle of restitution cannot apply in this case
because both the parties were aware that the contract was being done with a minor.
Under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the minor may be compelled to return the benefits
availed under zero contract. But in this case, the court does not think it appropriate,
because when Dharmodas Ghose was given a mortgage loan, the appellant knew that
he was a minor.
 Conclusion: Based on the above principles, the Privy Council rejected the appeal of
the appellant.

3) Whether the Civil Court of Mumbai was correct in rejecting the

plea of restitution?
The decision made by the honourable civil court of Mumbai in which the hon’ble
court rejected the plea of restitution was right. As appellant’s pray for injunction is
not applicable and no rights of appellant has been violated as the contract was
void-ab-initio.
Under the equitable notion of restitution, a minor who has received undue benefit
in any transaction is obligated under English law to return that profit. He is
required by the doctrine to return the precise items that he took. It only applies to
items or property that a juvenile receives and still has in his possession as long as it
is possible to track them down. The idea does not apply to money because it is hard
to distinguish between different types of money and to prove that they are the
same. The notion of restitution does not apply to items or property that have been
consumed, transferred, or are no longer traceable.

13
 Case law

The doctrine is clarified by the Leslie v. Sheill decision. In this instance, the plaintiffs
were moneylenders, and the defendant, a minor, deceitfully portrayed himself as a
major in order to obtain two loans from them, each worth £ 200. The plaintiffs filed a
claim in order to recoup £ 475, which is the total sum borrowed plus interest. The
Court of Appeal decided that there was no way to get the money back. If that were
permitted, it would be equivalent to enforcing the loan repayment agreement, which is
prohibited by the Infants' Relief Act of 1874.

In this instance, the agreement will be implemented if the minor is asked to repay. The
notion of restitution is inapplicable if repayment is a question; in the words of Lord
Sumner, "Restitution stops where repayment begin."

14
 THE PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advancedand authorities cited, it is
most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court to adjudge and declare
that:

•The contract between Mst Arijit Sonawale v. M/s Build Well contractors Pvt. Ltd., was
null and void-ab-inito.
•The judgment passed in MohoriBibee V. Dharmodas Ghose need not be reconsider.

And any other order which this hon’ble court may be pleased togrant in the interest of
justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

The Respondent
Through
Counsel

15